Honest Man: The Life of R. Budd Dwyer

Personally, I liked the documentary. It's not hard-hitting. It's mainly a favorable view of Dwyer's life. However, while I certainly don't think he was without his flaws, I think the film makes a compelling case for Dwyer's innocence.

Ultimately, it accomplishes this through one thing: William Smith's admission that he lied under oath about Dwyer's involvement. For some reason, ShoeBuckle tries to claim "the film TRIES to show he lied at Dwyer's trial". Either ShoeBuckle is not very bright or he has a reason to come back at Dwyer, because there is no trying involved. Smith himself admits it on camera. He repeatedly expresses his regret for this. It's an objective matter.

I also don't know why ShoeBuckle feels the need to attack Dwyer's son's character, but he does. The son is a normal guy, understandably somewhat embittered talking about this whole mess.

I highly recommend you watch the documentary, and also recommend you treat ShoeBuckle's review as the trash that it is.

I just finished the film and was taken by how one sided it turned out to be. At least half of the film covers his past. It plays out more like a tribute to the main character - Budd Dwyer.

The film is composed entirely of interviews and news casts. Headlines and partially highlighted newspaper articles are repeatedly shown. The selection of people interviewed and the amount of air time they are given all create bias towards Dwyer.

One example is the the appointment of a federal prosecutor. The film has someone interviewed stating that the "Democratic governor" had a role in his appointment. That is far from being true as it was a federal crime. The president at the time was Ronald Reagan who was also head of the Republican party. The Attorney General of the US is appointed by the president and he in turn assigns federal prosecutors. The "documentary" tries to make it seem that the Democratic governor who felt wronged by Dwyer was out for vengeance.

Another example of biasness is when the film shows the man who gave Dwyer the bribe money. William Smith, the district Republican chief, states in one scene of the film he was surprised that Dwyer accepted the money when he offered it to him. This would seem to indicate he knew it was bribe money. The film then tries to show he lied at Dwyer's trial because he was offered a plea bargain. One scene lasts three seconds and the other 4 minutes. Be very careful while watching as you may miss items as they are being glossed over by the filmmakers. Afterwards think about all you have seen and make your own decision regarding the case.

The interviews with Dwyer's son unwittingly show how he failed as a father. His son is not a very nice or compassionate man. The film spends far too much time interviewing Bud Dwyer's friends and family. It does not spend enough time combing through the case which led to his conviction.

The "documentary" did not do a very good job when explaining the charges against Dwyer. Instead it quickly introduced the evidence and witnesses then spent more time trying to demean them. It's as if the filmmakers felt only the headlines and a few quips were sufficient. I took issue with this and realized how poorly done the film had become.

I enjoy watching documentaries and exploring issues in an unbiased manner. This film really was a let down. I would say it is more of a propaganda piece than anything else. If you always felt Bud Dwyer was innocent or were one of his supporters then this film may be enjoyable. No one can feel good about what Dwyer did in taking his own life but do not let that act cloud your own judgment when viewing the film. I can not recommend others view it.

I had the great opportunity to come across "Honest Man: the Life of R. Budd Dwyer", a very well done biographical documentary and a tribute to a man who dedicated his life to serve his state, but who fell victim of political revenge and a disastrous justice system.

Although it's very hard to think about Budd Dwyer without thinking of his suicide, this documentary does an incredible job of not exploiting "the scene", guiding the audience to focus on what's really important to understand, which is Budd's life and his story.

The composition of the film was brilliant, narrating the story through a combination of powerful interviews with family members, notable archive materials, historic documents, and a very fine touch of artistic elements.

This is a great film that is both emotional and informative, and one not to miss.

Most of us watched this documentary for one reason, we saw Dwyer's suicide video and wanted to know what drove this man to do what he did. If I could sum Honest Man up in one word it would be poignant. At no time does the documentary try to sway you in his innocence or his guilt, which is the foundation of a good documentary, to present history without forcing you to believe what the documentarian believes. I think most of us are going to go into this with the outcome predetermined and we will see it the way we want to see it. I am not an emotional person but watching this documentary there were times that I felt something I'm not used to… sadness. Borrowed time, we are all on it, and Honest Man really shows us that not just Budd, and what went on in his life, but what could go on in any given day in ours. Many interviews in this documentary will stick with me. The only down side is there is very little of Budd himself talking. On the DVD there are a few swearing ins and a little bit of his final speech, in the extras, but what we learn of Budd comes from the memories of others and not his own words. Just to set the record straight the final speech was NOT aired live, it was rebroadcast. Who would care to watch the assumed resignation of a state treasurer live? Yes, kids were off of school that day but they did not see it live!

If the purpose of a documentary is to enlighten via the presentation of unbiased facts than surely james dirschberger's 'honest man : the life of r budd dwyer' is the ultimate anti-documentary.From the choice of interviewees (family members,ex colleagues),reluctance to even acknowledge or go into detail about the incriminating evidence against him and finally the completely partisan title of the finished product,you should be in no doubt what conclusions the film's makers want to you to draw about the case.Having had no preconceptions regarding dwyer's guilt or innocence going into watching this (i was merely interested in the story),i was disappointed by the bull in a china shop approach to proving his innocence. Imagine if 'capturing the friedman's' andrew jarecki's superlative documentary about the friedman abuse case took this same approach from the get go,then we'd have missed out on all the rich insight and thought provoking evidence for and against the accused that the director gleaned from both the interviews and the evidence he had procured and would have been left with a glorified celluloid character reference instead. As such 'honest man' is a massively dispiriting misfire that will surely only appeal to those who want quick and easy answers and wont question from whence they came.